kenshifandomcom-20200223-history
Category talk:Candidates for deletion
Please use this page to discuss pages that have been labelled for deletion. Armor Okay, why flag this for deletion? I'm aware there is another page called Body armour, but that page is barely written. Plus, the Armor page does have a list of armor types. So I propose we keep that. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 15:53, April 15, 2013 (UTC) I agree with the above post. This page should absolutely not be deleted, unless I'm missing something that warrants it's deletion... Veritas781 (talk) 18:57, April 15, 2013 (UTC) In hindsight, I think we should keep the armor (though renaming it to armour, you want to stay in a determined way of writing, be it british or american) page, as a category, and then put body, leg, foot armor as subcategories (I am not personally fond of armour in the game, so I do not know wether these are real things or im just babbling nonsense). You decide, whatever the decision, comunicate it tome, and I´ll un-flag it as soon as I can, Dezako (talk) 21:20, April 15, 2013 (UTC) Research Minichurro5 says: "This would be more fit as a category than a" No, I do not agree. If it was a category, then the word title, "Category:" will get in the way. Bad titling. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 06:20, May 26, 2013 (UTC) Excuse the accidental press of the enter button. But what do you mean by "...then the word title, 'Category:' will get in the way"? I say that this should be a category instead of a page. Better organization and less clutter. It would make these pages much easier to find. I have already made a category page for this, I only ask that it is deleted. Minichurro5 (talk) 06:48, May 26, 2013 (UTC) :Again, no. I prefer reading it on a list. Alphabetical order is a bad idea. If it is alphabetized, how will I know the research sequence? ---TacticalMaster (talk) 07:14, May 26, 2013 (UTC) :I have to note that the sequences are numbered and can be found on the page for the item you are researching. Instead of bickering back and forth, we should probably take this to an admin or crat. They will know what to do with it, and, if not, then they will decide, either way, what happens to the page. Maybe the page does not have to be deleted, but the category can at least stay. Although one may prefer reading it on a list, others may choose or say otherwise. And you still did not explain what I asked you about. Please expalin such in your next response. :Minichurro5 (talk) 07:22, May 26, 2013 (UTC) ::I am explaining everything you're saying. Because here's one thing: Try to search the word by the time the page is deleted, it would not pop up on the results, all because you wanted it on the Category page. People would have to add "Category:" first in the search box. But none would ever do so. So I prefer just keeping it in a sole page rather than just ::Also, what about the Research types? Because how do we find a certain type of tech we what to research? How? Everything is disorganized with automatic alphabetical format in the category page. I prefer using headers to organize everything. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 18:28, May 26, 2013 (UTC) ::Okay, haven't checked on this for a while, but I thought this out. First off, I added specific categories for the research types. Another thing, after the Research page is deleted and you search up "Research," you will, in fact, find the category page without having to type in "Category:" before it. I have tested this on many other category pages, so the phrase "Category:" does not get in the way. A list, to me, seems pointless, because there is no specific research order for all of them. It is just certain researches that have specific orders. And even then, the order can be found on the page itself, or the person can even just search up that specific research. I'm sure that they would be searching for a specific one instead of wasting their time, scrolling through a list to find it. I don't think we need the page to tell them what it is, either. Most people have enough common sense to know what "research" means. No picture is required either because if they are playing the game, then they already know what it looks like. And any info needed to be told, can just be put on the category page itself. :: Random Access 16:28, June 17, 2013 (UTC) Factions Why flag for this deletion? I do not see anything wrong with this. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 06:25, May 26, 2013 (UTC) There is not anything necessarily wrong with the page. It just is unimportant, considering that there is already a category page for this subject. Whatever information that is specific for factions in general, should be put onto the category page for it. P.S. If you would like to speak about this more, I can easily speak my opinion in chat. The chat here would make it much easier to communicate than to swap messages on here. Minichurro5 (talk) 06:50, May 26, 2013 (UTC) :It is important. The reason it's there for a reason is so that there is a picture, there is a small description (if it can be just a few sub-headers), and what is neutral and what is hostile. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 07:16, May 26, 2013 (UTC) :You can just as easily have those things on the category page, and if someone wants to find out whether a faction is hostile or neutral, they can simply click on the page. They are bound to be trying to figure out more about the faction in the meantime anyway. :Minichurro5 (talk) 07:25, May 26, 2013 (UTC) ::We need the search the words. If we search the category itself, we need to search the word with "Category:" before it. If you ask me, people wouldn't bother searching it with this because they're gonna miss it a lot. ::But come on, both the page and category page are the same. There is no point in just switching between formats. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 18:35, May 26, 2013 (UTC) ::Then by all means, keep BOTH of the pages. Categorization is to help organize, but if you really feel that the page is useful, then I do not see why not. I am willing to compromise, of course, I just need good reason, which you have given. I will remove the candidate for deletion now, if you'd like. ::P.S. This reply applies to both Research and Factions, considering they are practically the same idea for deletion in the first place. ::Minichurro5 (talk) 18:53, May 26, 2013 (UTC) :::You want the good reason? The "good reason" is that there are more options to contribute to a regular page rather than a category page. Category pages are limited. What people would expect in a category page are just small details of information written. Of course it has alphabetical listing but what about everything else? What is it? What do they look like? How does it work? And are there any pictures of it and how does it work? :::In contrast, a regular page is empty and bland, but there are many ways to improve it. Do factions have emblems? Put it in, make a button. What is the faction's background? Research, write everything in it. You need three details for each individual factions: Background, appearance, and icon. But the most important thing about writing information to one topic is: "How does he entire concept work?" So what does faction do? Where is the window, and I need a simplified, bulleted list of all the factions. Follow the basic structure of informational writing: Who? What? Where? When? How? Why? :::This also applies to research. But to questions like: "What does research do?" "Are there any general pictures of what the research looks like?" :::P.S: You're still not paying attention to the "search argument" I made. Think about it: if the page you're looking for is in the category page format instead, it won't come up on the search results. Search "factions," then page through ALL the results. And what you're trying to find, is NOT there, because it is instead called "Category:Factions". And many people will miss a lot putting in that "Category:" thing. :::And further more, it is made a year ago and what you're proposing here is that you're trying to erase history of hard work. But think about it: What would happen if there are "hidden information" in those past edits that were accidentally deleted in either way? ---TacticalMaster (talk) 04:28, May 27, 2013 :::(UTC) :::You are becoming frustrated and not understanding. I told you that you have given me good reason already, and that we should just keep both pages. You are wasting your time trying to convince me further because you already have and I admitted to your argument. Please, do not get frustrated because all I want to do is compromise. I am not telling you that you are wrong, I am simply speaking logically here. Also, the Main Page has the Research page linked. You could always just link it to the category instead, but that's just my input. And all that hard work is obviously taken granted for. This wiki is practically dead and the User that put that information there is probably long gone. :::P.S. If you wouldn't mind, I ask that you comment on my blog that I posted a few days ago. It is actually important, and you should take the time to read it. Thank you. :::P.P.S. Always remember to pay attention to details. It was apparent you weren't with this long reply because I had already admitted that you were right, and all you did was waste your time typing all of that. :::Minichurro5 (talk) 19:50, May 27, 2013 (UTC) ::::Sigh. Whatever. Because I went on a few fairly active wikis and among them, there were pages not in the Category page format. But what's the point? You're asking to become admin anyways and there's nothing I can do about it. I'm assuming you've went to other very active wikis and you also believe in that Category page format. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 23:01, May 27, 2013 (UTC) ::::Oh, no, believe me, I think that your method is great. But the Category page format was made for such reasons. And you can add the same things onto a Category page that you can just an empty page. But, please, comment on the blog. I want to adopt this wiki, and I'm sure that you agree with what I said on there. All you have to do is state your agreement and that's it. And, yes, there are a lot of pages not in the Category page format. But let's say that you were on the Adventure Time Wiki and there was just a page name 'Characters' and it wasn't a Category page. Would you ask it to be switched to Category format? Because what would the page 'Characters' have that people don't already know? Like, with the Research page, I can understand, but you can just as easily add that information onto the Category page if you really wanted to. Now with the Factions page, people know what a Faction is. It's like calling the Users here idiots. And the picture thing, if they wanted to know something from the Research page, then they would know what the Research tab in the game looks like, because they have likely already played it. ::::Also, the "search argument," that can easily be solved. There's a lot more that a wiki can be made to do than you think, and I'm here to show you guys that. I can show you how convenient Category pages really are. ::::Minichurro5 (talk) 01:38, May 28, 2013 (UTC)